Re: family preservation

["Julia H. Littell" <jlittell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A careful look at the research design used in North Carolina indicates that
it doesn't "prove" anything. The NC research is quasi-experimental in
nature, hence there are many competing explanations for the findings. 

At 12:41 PM 9/27/2001 -0400, Adolph.Simmons wrote:
>The key issue is that there are several open-ended models of family
>preservation that are not as effective as traditional services.  In
>North Carolina we have an Intensive Family Preservation program that has
>years of research that proves that this model, if properly legislated,
>funded, and supported, can prove effective in preventing placement.  Dr.
>Ray Kirk at the University of North Carolina (creator of the North
>Carolina Family Assessment Scale) has conducted numerous studies on
>Family Preservation.  Go to:
>
>http://childrensservices.dhhs.state.nc.us/resourcedevelopment/index.htm
>
>Then select the Retrospective Study.  This is a legislatively mandated
>report that proves Family Preservation can and does work as compared to
>traditional services.
>
>bill higgins wrote:
>
>> We are reading about in-home services as part of our
>> agency reading group.  Can anyone answer why states
>> still use family preservation programs when the
>> research concludes that they don't prevent placement
>> or child abuse?  At least when compared with
>> traditional programs.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
>> http://phone.yahoo.com
>
>Attachment Converted: "c:\progra~1\eudora\attach\Refamily.htm"
>